Nobiliary Entitlements (was Spanish/Mexican Law)

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
01 October 2015 21:49
 

Hi all,

I wanted to reply to a comment from another thread, but it was off topic, so I’ve started a new thread…

 

Mike McCartney wrote:
Quote:

...So just as the general customs and practices of English society generally were retained here where (but only to the extent) they were not inconsistent with the small-r republican values that distinguish us from the Brits, likewise our heraldry.

Here, even the upper levels of our resident colonial society were mostly commoners; colonial nobility was generally limited to the occasional colonial Governor with a peerage title who came, served their time, and returned to the UK; and the odd baronetage.

 

The Revolution and independence further pruned any nobiliary entitlements and trappings in our society, and therefore in our heraldry. While many of our founders used arms, almost none of them were nobles (peers) - the only one I can think of was "Baron" von Steuben (whose title was apparently iffy) but when he asked Congress to recognize his title after the war, they politely declined the request as being incompatible with a republic. Thus our nearly universal custom among those whose role in our founding might warrant emulation was arms with no nobiliary trappings. And any titled immigrant seeking citizenship was (still is AFAIK) required to renounce that title as a condition of naturalization; and thus also any heraldic references to the renounced nobiliary status.

 

And of course any requirement or expectation that arms be officially granted or regulated - never really enforced in colonial times - totally disappeared with independence.

 

That was the pruned version of English heraldry that set the norm for American heraldry…


Hi Mike,

 

I’ve always been interested and intrigued in your views on this topic.  Do you mind if I ask for an example just to be sure I understand your position correctly?

 

The example I have in mind is the 5th Earl of Wharncliffe, Richard Alan Montagu-Stuart-Wortley (b. 1953).  He is a construction foreman from Connecticut/Maine who inherited the title back in 1987 when his cousin in the UK died.  I have no idea what arms the 4th Earl used, but I would guess the achievement contained a shield, peer’s helm, crest (or crests), coronet, supporters and motto.

 

Hypothetically, if you were in Richard’s position and inherited the title Earl of Wharncliffe, what elements would you retain in your achievement and which elements would you avoid using?  Would you just use the shield, crest, motto and helm?  And, if so, what type of helm?

 

Thanks very much!

 
Iain Boyd
 
Avatar
 
 
Iain Boyd
Total Posts:  309
Joined  15-10-2005
 
 
 
01 October 2015 22:26
 

I suppose I should have let Mike have the first word, but . . . . .

In my opinion, the 5th Earl should be able to use, at his discretion, the full arms associated with the earldom. In fact, any American citizen who inherits a title should be able to use the title and the full arms.

 

I appreciate that many on this forum are or, at least, appear to be ardent republicans.

 

This should not prevent them from allowing the use of inherited heraldic elements that they would prefer American citizens not use.

 

At least, the 5th Earl is entitled to supporters, a coronet and a helmet of rank.

 

Non-titled American citizens are not entitled so should not use them anyway.

 

Regards,

 

Iain Boyd

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
02 October 2015 03:00
 

Well ... in order:

Seb - the primary function of heraldry (beyond eye candy!) is generally accepted to be identification - a visual expression of who one is, and to what family he belongs.  And in our AHS Guidelines ("best practices") one of the main points is that the heraldic practices of any nation, and especially ours, should respect and reflect the nation’s history, laws, and political and social norms, which trump here any inconsistent practices however widely accepted elsewhere. So in terms of "best practice" in the US, here’s how I see it:

 

For everyday public use in the US, Mr. M-S-W (does he actually use this mouthful on e.g. his drivers license and passport?) should be treated, and treat himself, just as any other American: shield, crest, motto, and if a helmet is included, one that doesn’t proclaim or imply any nobiliary status.  Here, under our laws and norms, while his inheritance of a foreign title is of academic interest, he is simply Mr. WhateverItSaysOnHisPassport.

 

There may be specific situations in which his English peerage title is pertinent - maybe a St. George Society social function, or a family get-together, or maybe a visit to England - when he may choose to use his English title and/or peerage additaments; but come Monday morning as he reverts to being an American, bearing arms, crest, commoner’s helmet and motto - the foreign supporters, coronet, noble helm, peersge robes and such go back in the closet along with his foreign title, none of which reflect his identity as an American citizen.  (I believe the AHS Guidelines address in some detail the armorial display of foreign honors and orders; but these are personal awards, not tied to a peerage title.)

 

Ian - see above.  If the new 5th Earl wants to be, and be accepted as an Earl in everyday life, America isn’t the place for that.  He can likely find a number of star-struck Americans who will humor or even honor those foreign pretensions, but IMO neither he nor they really understand and appreciate this nation’s history and norms.

 

Others may of course disagree; that’s their right.  I just believe they’re wrong.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
02 October 2015 03:20
 

I basically agree with Mike, but wanted to underline in response to Iain’s post that I don’t think anyone here sees it as a matter of what the gentleman in Connecticut is allowed to do, but of what we recommend that he choose to do.

A British peerage title has substantive existence in the UK and perhaps in such other countries as may accord them such, but it doesn’t have any real existence in the United States.

 

In my research on heraldry in Virginia, I’ve found at least one or two baronets who dropped their use of the title at the time of independence.  At a more elevated plane, George Washington’s friend the Rev. Bryan Fairfax, 8th Lord Fairfax, who succeeded to the title in 1793, ignored the title until he was in London on business and it was confirmed by the House of Lords in 1798.  After he died in 1802, none of his heirs for the next three generations used or showed any interest in the title.  It was only when the 12th Lord moved to London and joined a banking firm there that the use of the title was revived (in 1908 ).

 

On the other hand, we do recognize such titles socially and by courtesy (Washington’s late letters to Bryan Fairfax address him as "My lord."  So if an American citizen is the rightful baron or earl of something or other, it would be inconsistent with Washington’s practice to tell him he can’t use the heraldic additaments that go with the title, but I nevertheless think that, as a matter of best practice, he shouldn’t.

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
02 October 2015 09:45
 

Thanks Mike!  I hope you don’t mind if I ask a second hypothetical?  In 1993 James Michael Dunbar (b. 1950) became the 14th Baronet of Mochrum.  James lives in North Carolina or Virginia, and is a retired Colonel in the US Air Force.  I’m not sure what arms the 13th Baronet used, but I believe it is a baronetcy in the Baronetage of Nova Scotia (entitling the baronet to a canton or escutcheon of the arms of Nova Scotia [Argent a saltire Azure charged with an escutcheon of the Royal Arms of Scotland]).  If you were Colonel Dunbar and inherited the baronetcy, would you drop the canton or escutcheon of Nova Scotia (in every day American usage)?

Many thanks!

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
02 October 2015 14:23
 

Joe - thanks for clarifying "should/shouldn’t" (moral obligations) vs "can/can’t" (legal requirements).  I did mention Guidelines and "best practices" but didn’t adequately cover the distinction.

But speaking only for myself, relying on the lack of legal sanctions to justify ignoring moral obligations is not an honorable approach.  By analogy, recognizing the free speech rights of others to say objectionable things doesn’t require that I personally respect either the content, or the speaker.

 

I get grumpier with age. wink

 

I’ll address Seb’s latest scenario (Dunbar baronetcy) separately, after I meet my moral obligation to rake the leaves off the back porch.  (Think "she who must be obeyed")

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
02 October 2015 15:44
 

Iain Boyd;104781 wrote:

In my opinion, the 5th Earl should be able to use, at his discretion, the full arms associated with the earldom. In fact, any American citizen who inherits a title should be able to use the title and the full arms.

 

Non-titled American citizens are not entitled so should not use them anyway.

 


Agree.  The Titles of Nobility Amendment was never ratified by the required number of states.

 

I’d hate to think that a hereditary clan chief would lose his supporters and helm just because he was, by accident of birth, an American citizen.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
02 October 2015 22:22
 

The thought strikes me:  Alan Cumming is both a British subject AND a US citizen, and he’s allowed to accept the OBE- why the heartburn about other honors originating from the British Sovereign?

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
03 October 2015 00:57
 

David - re: dual citizenship - that’s been discussed here in the past.  My recall (possibly slanted by my own opinions) is that if one is a citizen of both country A and country B, he should follow the practices of A while in A, and the practices of B while in B.  Following A while in B, or vice-versa, where the two differ, would be disrespectful and inappropriate.

An OBE is IMO not a good analogy to the title or additaments of a peer, knight or baronet.  An OBE is a personal award which does not AFAIK convey or imply any titled nobiliary status; and an American in our military, civil or diplomatic service who is awarded this sort of honor may IIRC request permission to accept and wear the award along with whatever American awards he may have received.  (This is addressed in some detail in our AHS Guidelines.).  It is therefore potentially acceptable in both the UK and US, and OK to hang below his shield in both places.

 

However, as far as I can see, none of this is analogous or relevant to a foreign title or nobiliary armorial additaments, which are incompatible - that is,  cannot IMO be reconciled - with American small-r republican norms, or with the "best practices" in our Guidelines for American heraldry.  Our Guidelines do allow a limited exception for use of foreign titles and additaments when the recipient is participating in certain activities - Scottish Games or similar ethnic events, clan or family gatherings and activities, etc. when the individual is acting in his foreign capacity, but not otherwise; come Monday morning, as noted earlier, all the foreign stuff goes back in the closet and the individual in question reverts to bring a regular American citizen, no better nor worse than any other so long as he acts as an American should act.  (General approach reflected in Guidelines; preachy moralizing is me icing the cake.)

 

(Personally I’m a bit uncomfortable, or at least of two minds, even with these limited exceptions, but that’s just me; I can’t fairly criticize anyone for doing what the Guidelines allow.)

 

Of course no one is gonna get arrested for playing the peer in everyday life, absent any fraudulent preying on gullible folk; but it clearly isn’t " best practice".

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
03 October 2015 02:15
 

Seb - you asked for my views re: the American Dunbar who inherited the baronetcy (is that a word?) and chiefship.

To me the two inheritances, while connected, are inherently different for our purposes.  The baronetcy title, with heraldic additaments, are to my mind no different for American use from the peerage case already addressed.  While they are clearly not the same in Scottish or UK law and practice, the shared aspects - a title and related nobiliary additaments - are in both cases incompatible with American norms generally and American heraldry in particular.  Except for the limited cases allowed under the Guidelines, in which the individual is essentially acting in his foreign capacity, he should not as an American use foreign titles or heraldic additaments incompatible with American norms.  Ideally he could (IMO should) have one emblazonment with the baronetcy additaments for use in that context, and another with no additaments for day to day use as an American.

 

The chiefship of Name and Arms is IMO a bit different, since I don’t consider it to be a "title" though others may see it differently.  But "playing the Chief" outside of the context of family, Clan and Scottish culture seems inappropriate to my mind, so not all that different in practice from the baronetcy.  And heraldically, the use of chiefly supporters with his arms is to me no different than any other use of supporters by a peer, baronet, knight grand cross etc. - a visual claim of a special status.  OK in the foreign context (special events including Clan business) but not for everyday use in the American context.  (Same two emblazonments approach noted above re: baronetcy.)

 

As usual, others may (some clearly do) disagree.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
03 October 2015 02:39
 

Despite the blatherings of late 19th-early 20th century Celto-Romantics, chiefship of a clan is not and never has been an honor from the crown and in itself conveys no formal status or privilege in the UK or even Scotland.  He is not even the head of a legally constituted private organization; the highest court in Scotland has held repeatedly that clans have no formally recognized existence under the law.

Now the clan chief may also be a peer or baronet, each of which is an honor from the crown and each of which carries, to one extent or another, some degree of hereditary privilege.  These are manifestations of a system of formally established civilian social rank that is alien to U.S. norms.  But the chiefship of the clan and the peerage or baronetcy are entirely separable, and in fact have often descended through separate lines for one reason or another.

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
03 October 2015 08:39
 

Michael F. McCartney;104795 wrote:

Ideally he could (IMO should) have one emblazonment with the baronetcy additaments for use in that context, and another with no additaments for day to day use as an American.


Thanks Mike!  That’s what I thought…I guess what I was driving at is whether or not ‘additaments’ in these instances applied only to elements exterior to the shield (coronet, supporters, helm) or to elements within the shield as well (so to speak) like a baronet’s canton.

 

Just for the record, I too believe that the concept of hereditary nobility is incompatible with American values.  In fact, I think the AHS guidelines on this point are fairly generous.  As we have seen in the previous thread, one of our sister independent American republics (Mexico) dealt with a similar issue by forbidding public display all coats of arms of all nobles.  That, to my mind, is like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

I have to go to work today (http://sacarchivescrawl.blogspot.com/) but I have another question rolling around in my head, so I shall return smile

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
03 October 2015 12:46
 

Picturing Seb as a good-natured Terminator - "I’ll be back!" wink

Having taken a rather hard line re: nobiliary additaments, in fairness I should admit a soft spot for signet rings.  Not re: external additaments - supporters or coronets -which would be clearly visible, and practically speaking, would also force the shield to be even smaller and less distinctively recognizable; and in any case are optional in any given emblazonment.  But a small Canton or dangling gong for a baronet, on or beneath the already small shield on a normal size signet ring, would be so tiny as to be nearly invisible.  And given the cost of a high quality reverse-engraved signet ring in gold or an engraved stone, pushing the technical taboo seems a bit extreme even for a nobiliary nay-sayer like me.

 
snelson
 
Avatar
 
 
snelson
Total Posts:  464
Joined  03-06-2005
 
 
 
03 October 2015 22:28
 

Hi again,

I’m back!  The practice of Americans voluntarily retiring their nobiliary entitlements/additaments reminds me of something I once read in Heraldry: customs, rules, and styles by Von Volborth.

 

When writing about German nobles, he states:
Quote:

...nowadays their armorial bearings are usually depicted in a style which relates to the armorial designs of the 13th and 14th centuries, and in their earliest known form.  That means that any additions which might have been made to the achievements in later centuries, such as a second crested helm, supporters, a motto, etc., are left out.  This is a custom and not a rule…http://heraldryjunkyard.tumblr.com/image/130441898492


A good illustration appears in Heraldry: customs, rules, and styles...the ancient arms of the von Blücher and the later arms of Leberecht von Blücher, Fürst von Wahlstatt (1742-1819): http://heraldryjunkyard.tumblr.com/image/130442306492

 

This German practice strikes me as somewhat similar to the guideline we’ve been talking about.  There are some differences.  Germany is home to many more noble families than is the United States, I would imagine.  But like the US, personal heraldry is not officially regulated in the Federal Republic of Germany, and noble titles are not recognized (I think).  Anyway, can anybody recommend any literature or articles that deal with this German custom?  It would be interesting to learn when and how this practice emerged, and any other aspects.  Perhaps it may even serve as a template to follow, or maybe offer some cautionary tales?

 

Thanks!

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
04 October 2015 01:40
 

My impression from reading von Volborth (same book) was that the older nobility (the uradel) reverted to older, simpler versions of their arms to set themselves apart from the newer nobles who reveled in their newly granted quarterings, inescutcheons, helmets of rank and other nobiliary additaments.  In effect the increase in the newer nobility cheapened, in the uradel mindset, the trappings of nobility. (My words, but hopefully a reasonable reading of vV.)

I don’t see this as historically analogous to additaments in the English-speaking sphere generally, but if it raises the appreciation of simpler arms (shield, helm, crest) and diminishes the appeal of nobiliary additaments, I’m cool with it! wink

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
04 October 2015 07:35
 

One thing for sure to be taken from von Volborth’s quote:  the distinction between customs and rules.  The existence in other English-speaking countries of official heraldic authorities who turned customs into rules has, I think, blurred the distinction for many people.